On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> >> Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMUXXXX"? Something I missed? > > So that guests that bind to this interface will work fine with non QEMU > implementations of virtio-mmio. I don't understand this sentence. If there are pre-existing non-QEMU virtio-mmio implementations, then they're using LNRO0005, and we should use it too. If there are going to be implementations of virtio-mmio in future, then they will use whatever identifier we pick here. Either way, we get interoperability. I don't see any difference between our saying "the ID for virtio-mmio is QEMU0005" and saying "the ID for virtio-mmio is 1AF4103F". (The latter seems unnecessarily opaque to me, to be honest. At least an ID string QEMUxxxx gives you a clue where to look for who owns the thing.) Note also that strictly you don't mean "non-QEMU implementations of virtio-mmio", you mean "non-QEMU implementations of the ACPI tables". The hardware implementation of virtio-mmio doesn't care at all about the ACPI ID. (In fact the most plausible other-implementation would be UEFI using its own (hard-coded) ACPI tables on top of a QEMU vexpress-a15 model or something similar.) -- PMM _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
